PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT F I N A L R E P O R T FEBRUARY 2014

2

3 Traffic Incident Management The Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee The Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) was established in 1970 by Act 120 of the State Legislature, which also created the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The TAC has two primary duties. First, it "consults with and advises the State Transportation Commission and the Secretary of Transportation on behalf of all transportation modes in the Commonwealth." In fulfilling this task, the TAC assists the Commission and the Secretary "in the determination of goals and the allocation of available resources among and between the alternate modes in the planning, development, and maintenance of programs and technologies for transportation systems." The second duty of the TAC is "to advise the several modes (about) the planning, programs, and goals of the Department and the State Transportation Commission." The TAC undertakes in-depth studies on important issues and serves as a liaison between PennDOT and the general public. The TAC consists of the following members: the Secretary of Transportation; the heads (or their designees) of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Department of Community and Economic Development, Public Utility Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and the Governor's Policy Office; two members of the State House of Representatives; two members of the State Senate; and 19 public members seven appointed by the Governor, six by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and six by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Public members with experience and knowledge in the transportation of people and goods are appointed to represent a balanced range of backgrounds (industry, labor, academia, consulting, and research) and the various transportation modes. Appointments are made for a three-year period and members may be reappointed. The Chair of the Committee is annually designated by the Governor from among the public members. FINAL REPORT iii

4 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee Acknowledgements TAC Members Chair Mr. Louis C. Schultz, Jr. Transportation Consultant Cumberland County Members Hon. Barry J. Schoch, P.E. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Ms. Jennifer Branstetter Director of Planning and Policy Office of the Governor Roy E. Brant, Ph.D. Edinboro University (ret.) Crawford County Mr. Brad J. Cober Somerset County Court Administrator Mr. Donald L. Detwiler New Enterprise Stone & Lime Company, Inc. Bedford County Mr. Thomas C. Geanopulos Marketing Consultant (ret.) Allegheny County Hon. George Greig Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Hon. David S. Hickernell Pennsylvania State House of Representatives District 98 Hon. Richard A. Kasunic Pennsylvania State Senate, District 32 Mr. Joseph Mangarella Carol Ann Fashions (ret.) Cambria County Mr. Joel B. McNeil Brookville Equipment, Jefferson County Hon. John C. Rafferty, Jr. Pennsylvania State Senate, District 44 Mr. Robert T. Regola, III McCormick Taylor Westmoreland County Sean M. Reilly, Esq. Roscommon International, Inc. Philadelphia County Mr. John (Jack) Rutter, P.E. IA Construction Corporation (ret.) York County Mr. Gustave Scheerbaum, III, P.E. City of Philadelphia Mr. Larry Segal Impact Pennsylvania Strategies, LLC Delaware County Mr. Jeffrey J. Stroehmann JDM Consultants, Union County Hon. Ronald Tomalis Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Education Mr. Michael W. Untermeyer, Esq. William-Michael Associates Philadelphia County Mr. Ronald G. Wagenmann Montgomery County Hon. C. Alan Walker Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Mr. Charles F. Welker, P.E. EADS Group, Inc. (ret.), Blair County Ms. Mary Worthington Wellsboro Area Chamber of Commerce Tioga County Hon. Robert F. Powelson Chairman, Public Utility Commission iv FINAL REPORT

5 Traffic Incident Management Task Force Chairman Mr. Robert T. Regola, III McCormick Taylor Westmoreland County Members Mr. Louis Schultz TAC Chairman Roy E. Brant, Ph.D. Edinboro University (ret.) Crawford County Mr. Ronald Bressler Pennsylvania Towing Association Mr. Glenn M. Cannon Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) Mr. Tony Mento Federal Highway Administration Major Timothy J. Mercer Pennsylvania State Police Mr. Jeffrey J. Stroehmann JDM Consultants, Union County Mr. Timothy Scanlon Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Mr. Gustave Scheerbaum, III, P.E. City of Philadelphia Mr. Craig Shuey Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Mr. Doug Smith Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Michael W. Untermeyer, Esq. William-Michael Associates Philadelphia County Mr. Ronald G. Wagenmann Montgomery County Mr. John Ward Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission PennDOT Partners Jessica Clark Center for Program Development and Management Jon Fleming Bureau of Maintenance and Operations Bryan Kendro PennDOT Policy Office James Ritzman, P.E. Deputy Secretary for Planning Larry Shifflet Center for Program Development and Management Consultant Staff Erin Arva Dennis Lebo Eric Rensel Robert Taylor Chuck Yorks Gannett Fleming, Inc. Paul Caulfield Dering Consulting Group Julia Johnson Wordsworth Communications Mark Tobin Center for Program Development and Management Doug Tomlinson Bureau of Maintenance and Operations Daryl St. Clair Bureau of Maintenance and Operations Brian Znamirowski Bureau of Maintenance and Operations FINAL REPORT v

6 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee Table of Contents Acronyms... vii Executive Summary Introduction and Background Traffic Incident Management Overview A History of TIM in the United States Overview of TIM in Pennsylvania Municipal/County Approach State Approach Common Approach Pennsylvania Statutes TIM Best Practices Overview Policy and Legislation Leadership, Institutional, and Sustainability Activities Safe, Quick Clearance Best Practices Representative National/Regional TIM Practices National Role Pennsylvania Planning Partners Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) Reverse Peer Review Findings and Recommendations Findings Action Plan Local-to-Statewide TIM Communication and Coordination Structure Vision-Setting Session Bibliography Appendix: Reverse Peer Review Summary Newsletter vi FINAL REPORT

7 Traffic Incident Management Acronyms AASHTO...American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials DHS...Department of Homeland Security DVRPC...Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission EPCRA...Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (also known as SARA Title III) ERSI...Emergency Responder Safety Institute FEMA...Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA...Federal Highway Administration ICS...Incident Command System ITS...Intelligent Transportation Systems JOPS...Joint Operational Policy Statement LEPC...Local Emergency Planning Committee MPO...Metropolitan Planning Organization MVM...Million Vehicle-Miles NIMS...National Incident Management System NTIMC...National Traffic Incident Management Coalition NUG...National Unified Goal PEMA...Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency PEMC...Pennsylvania Emergency Management Council PennDOT...Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PennTIME...Pennsylvania Traffic Incident Management Enhancement PSP...Pennsylvania State Police PTC...Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission RCW...Revised Code of Washington RPO...Rural Planning Organization RTSMO...Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations Committee SAFR...Southern Area First Responders Group SHSP...Strategic Highway Safety Plan FINAL REPORT vii

8

9 Traffic Incident Management SPC TAC TIM TIME TRB TRIP Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Transportation Advisory Committee Traffic Incident Management Traffic Incident Management Enhancement Transportation Research Board Towing & Recovery Incentive Programming Executive Summary As defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), TIM is a planned and coordinated multidisciplinary process to detect, respond to, and clear traffic incidents so that traffic flow may be restored as safely and quickly as possible. Effective TIM reduces the duration and impact of traffic incidents and improves the safety of motorists, crash victims, and emergency responders. It also significantly reduces traffic congestion 25 percent of all congestion is attributed to traffic incidents. This study examines the current state of TIM in Pennsylvania and the U.S. It identifies the issues involved in TIM, based on current research to identify programs and delivery systems that can be effective in reducing the disruption time that motorists, pedestrians, and communities experience on local, state, and private roads. TIM in Pennsylvania is a blend of rural and urban needs, of volunteer and paid professionals, of state and local agencies, and of county government and state directives. Coordinating TIM in Pennsylvania has been challenging because state and local roadways fall under different jurisdictions and thus (by law) involve different responding entities and different protocols. On September 17, 2013, TAC, in conjunction with the FHWA Peer Review Process, invited a panel of U.S. TIM experts to speak to and interact with representatives from throughout Pennsylvania who have a stake in successful TIM. During their formal remarks and through their interaction with the attendees, the panel reinforced the need for TAC to focus on four central high-level areas of TIM: legislation, leadership, institutional, and sustainability opportunities. Additionally, the TAC Incident Management Task Force has researched the current state of traffic incident management policy and practice in Pennsylvania, reviewed national research and FINAL REPORT 1

10 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee studies done on the TIM practice, and compiled practices that appear to have positive potential. Key findings are: Legislation and Leadership o Pennsylvania Move Over (75 Pa.C.S. 3327) and Driver Removal laws are clear, though perhaps not familiar to the public. o Pennsylvania s Authority Removal law exempts persons removing vehicles from liability, but does not extend that exemption to the agencies or organizations those persons represent. o Pennsylvania laws covering coroners allow the removal of a body from the roadway so much as is necessary for precaution against traffic accidents or other serious consequences which might reasonably be anticipated if [the scene was] left intact. 1 o Pennsylvania s Emergency Services Code (P.L. 35) does not specifically reference traffic incidents or approaches that are to be used to coordinate crash detection, validation, dispatch, response, recovery, or performance measurement. o There is no meaningful towing/recovery certification program and there are no standards. Institutional and Sustainability o There is no statewide coordination body tasked with TIM responsibility. The effort is left to individuals whose passion for and interest in building a sustainable program is the driving force. Professional Capacity-Building o There is no unified or coordinated state training program associated with TIM. Public Information and Outreach o There is limited evidence of an effort to educate responders, experienced motorists, or new drivers on the importance of all parties understanding of and commitment to the shared responsibility for TIM. Based on the research completed and its understanding of the issues, the task force recommends eight actions be undertaken in Pennsylvania. The following matrix summarizes the recommendations, which are described in more detail in the Recommendations section. No. Recommendation Timeframe Lead Champion Return on Investment Considerations Legislative and Leadership 1 Establish Hold Harmless legislation, protecting: Response agencies and organizations Private towing and recovery companies Hazmat response units Nearterm Legislature Less time lost by commercial vehicles waiting in queues created by minor crashes. 1 (As amended 1990, Nov. 29, P.L. 602, No. 152, Sec. 3) 2 FINAL REPORT

11 Traffic Incident Management No Recommendation Amend Title 35 to address TIM: Collaborative effort of volunteer and paid responders PEMA Operations Deputy as responsible state officer Address multidisciplinary training and afteraction reviews Designate TIM strategic planning leadership Establish an Executive Statewide Incident Management Panel: Guide policy development Represent all disciplines and government levels represented Establish Joint Operational Policy: Guides statewide TIM program Sets expectations for communications, training, review activities, standards, etc. Institutional and Sustainability Timeframe Nearterm Nearterm Nearterm Lead Champion Return on Investment Considerations Legislature Improved preparedness for significant regional events. Agency Leads Agency Leads Streamlined initiative implementation, reducing duplicative efforts by individual agencies. Improved standardization that will improve response efficiency. 5 Establish PennTIME program: Statewide institutional responsibility Bidirectional communication structure, stateregional-local Expand use of FHWA TIM self-assessments Invest in performance measurement data and resources Establish scene safety and scene management guidelines Create towing certification, incentive, and cost recovery program Implement multi-agency, multidisciplinary afteraction review policies and procedures Institutionalize TIM at municipal/county levels Develop model guidelines for coroner procedures Address signal operations responsibilities for detour routes of NHS roadways Advance operations-related projects that address NUG Work to advance dedicated TIM funding line items in state budget Midterm Agency Leads/Reps Will improve integration of effort with large-scale preparedness and provide additional training resources. FINAL REPORT 3

12 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee No. Recommendation Professional Capacity-Building Timeframe Lead Champion Return on Investment Considerations 6 7 Expand LEPC connections Amend legislation to require involvement in LEPC committees by PennDOT, PSP, PADEP, and all other state and local response agencies and companies. Charge LEPC committees with considering TIM as part of SARA-related evacuation planning. Midterm Enhance and coordinate joint training activities: Midterm Includes training opportunities through PennTIME and other organizations Office of State Fire Commissioner to: o Implement national emergency responder training statewide (coordinate with other disciplines to achieve broad acceptance) o Receive funding to maintain multi-agency TIM training calendar and implement training through PA fire academies o Determine need for and value of other training curricula Public Education PennTIME Will merge transportation and emergency planning at the local level, leading to a more complete understanding of resource needs. PennTIME Greater standardization will be achieved, leading to safer and faster incident clearance and the ability to measure benefits quantitatively. 8 Improve driver education and outreach: Promote awareness of TIM-related laws PennDOT, PSP, and PTC to provide updated outreach and educational materials using various mediums to PennTIME organizations Establish Responder Safety Week and track related safety improvements Conduct annual surveys (through PennDOT driver licensing centers) tracking awareness of TIM-related laws Midterm PennDOT An improved traveling experience in Pennsylvania that includes enhanced motorist and responder safety, and improved economic performance. 4 FINAL REPORT

13 Traffic Incident Management 1. Introduction and Background According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, two-thirds of the congestion on U.S. roadways is non-recurring congestion. That includes traffic crashes, maintenance and construction work zone lane restrictions, weather events, and other unpredictable conditions. In 2009 alone, non-recurring congestion cost Pennsylvania an estimated $216 million. Nearly 25 percent of all congestion is attributed to traffic incidents alone. Of all emergency responder fatalities in the past decade, those at traffic crashes were more than 50 percent of the total. Secondary crashes are a problem as well. A secondary crash can occur in the queue of either direction of traffic approaching the incident scene. It is estimated that 20 percent of crashes are secondary crashes, and that one in five secondary crashes is fatal. 1.1 Traffic Incident Management Overview Traffic Incident Management (TIM) is the term used by agencies, entities, and organizations involved in preparedness, response, and recovery from incidents and events that affect traffic capacity and/or operations. The practice involves planning, investment, and interagency and interdepartmental support for roadway and roadside activities that result in safe, quick clearance of roadway obstructions and a return to normal operations. FINAL REPORT 5

14 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee This study examines the current state of TIM in Pennsylvania and the U.S. It identifies the issues involved in TIM, based on current research to identify programs and delivery systems that can be effective in reducing the disruption time that motorists, pedestrians, and communities experience on local, state, and private roads. The starting point for the study was the 2012 U.S. Department of Transportation report entitled National Traffic Incident Management Leadership & Innovation: Roadmap for Success, which outlines results of the Summer 2012 Senior Executive Transportation and Public Safety Summit in Washington, D.C. The federal roadmap lays out a set of goals and recommendations. This TAC study is organized according to those goal areas and examines and refines them for application in Pennsylvania. This report s findings and recommendations align with federal guidance. Specifically, this study examines, by its stated scope: Existing best practices as commonly identified by agencies and entities, as reported to FHWA, and in the context of the Roadmap; Current Pennsylvania efforts on issues related to quick clearance of roadways; and Activities led by metropolitan planning organizations and others in this subject area. 1.2 A History of TIM in the United States TIM began with the first response to the first crash that obstructed safe passage on a roadway. From that earliest unrecorded incident through the evolution of the Automobile Age in the 20 th century, TIM was defined, and refined, by responders such as passing motorists, nearby property owners, firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency medical personnel, ambulance drivers, tow truck operators, and specialized technical experts. Near the turn of the 21 st century, the role of public safety dispatchers became clearer, and centralized dispatch support for first responders began to be defined. Today, technology advances enable information collection and connections from Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) components to those support centers, which allows agencies to electronically detect crash consequences, such as backed-up traffic. Systems allow information-sharing in a variety of ways with motorists, responders, and travelers planning their routes. The process of incident management begins with knowing about the incident (detection), then validating the needs associated with stabilizing the incident, treating the wounded, and restoring traffic capacity. The process may simply involve a passing motorist offering assistance, or it may 6 FINAL REPORT

15 Traffic Incident Management require multiple disciplines working together. Figure 1 illustrates that knowledge of the incident can result in separate dispatches of multiple resources from multiple disciplines, as well as separate private sector media reports via television, radio, Internet, or mobile phone applications. Effective and appropriate TIM activities coordinate disciplines and jurisdictions to minimize duplication of effort and maximize resource utilization. At the federal level, the United States implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and adoption of the Incident Command System (ICS) in 2004 gave responders a common structure and language. This enables first responders to work together at a scene, define common objectives, promote life safety, stabilize incidents, and preserve property. Strategies could include a common procedure for dispatch of resources that would help promote efficient use of resources, safe scene ingress and egress, and quicker clearance of incident obstructions. Figure 1: Incidents Result in Separate Dispatches of Separate Resources FINAL REPORT 7

16 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee The National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC) was formed in 2004 under the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as a multidisciplinary forum spanning the public safety and transportation communities to coordinate knowledge, practices, and ideas. NTIMC formulated the National Unified Goal (NUG) for TIM in The goal has three facets, or objectives: Responder safety Safe, quick clearance Prompt, reliable, interoperable communications Strategies were developed under each of the three objectives, along with cross-cutting strategies that will advance overall progress (Table 1). Table 1: Objectives to Achieve the National Unified Goal (NUG) Goal Area/ Objective Strategies Cross-cutting Establish partnerships and programs Provide multidisciplinary training Promote performance measurement Implement coordinated technology Advocate for supportive policies Build partnerships for awareness and education Responder Safety Safe, Quick Clearance Prompt, Reliable Interoperable Communications Develop recommended practices Enact Move Over/Slow Down laws Establish driver training and awareness programs Adopt multidisciplinary procedures Set response and clearance time goals Ensure 24/7 resource availability Standardize communication practices and procedures Improve responder notifications Develop interoperable voice and data networks Integrate broadband emergency communications Provide prompt, reliable traveler information Build partnerships with news media and information providers Another significant product of the NTIMC is its TIM Network, a web-based organization of nearly 2,000 practitioners sharing best practices and ideas across more than 40 states. 8 FINAL REPORT

17 Traffic Incident Management The most recent significant activity in national TIM thinking is the aforementioned National Traffic Incident Management Leadership & Innovation: Roadmap for Success, which outlines results of the Summer 2012 Senior Executive Transportation and Public Safety Summit in Washington, D.C. The document identified four major areas of emphasis moving forward: Leadership and Legislation Institutional and Sustainability Professional Capacity Building Public Awareness and Education FINAL REPORT 9

18 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee 2. Overview of TIM in Pennsylvania TIM in Pennsylvania is a blend of rural and urban needs, of volunteer and paid professionals, of state and local agencies, and of county government and state directives. As illustrated in the previous section, the fact that responsibilities are divided across many agencies and various levels of government almost guarantees conflicts and inefficiencies. The fact that there are successes in incident management is a testament to the dedication of disparate groups focused on shared goals, despite having no official structure or enabling organizational approach. This study acknowledges the lack of TIM structure that currently exists, and embraces local and regional efforts that have proven successful. Coordinating TIM in Pennsylvania has been challenging because state and local roadways fall under different jurisdictions and thus (by law) involve different responding entities and different protocols. For example, as shown on Figure 2, two-thirds of the road miles in the Commonwealth are owned and maintained by individual municipalities, and are thus governed by municipal policies and dependent on municipal funding decisions. Figure 2: Pennsylvania Roadway Miles Miles, Interstate, 1,856 Miles, Arterials, 13,769 Miles, Collectors, 19,837 Interstate Arterials Miles, Local Roads, 84,224 Collectors Local Roads Source: State Transportation Statistics 2011, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation 10 FINAL REPORT

19 Traffic Incident Management State Hwy (Interstate) Table 2: Crashes by Road Type State Hwy (Other) Turnpike Local Road Other Crashes 9,235 80,390 2,521 31, Persons Killed Persons Injured 5,631 58,753 1,120 21, Miles of Maintained Road 1,367 39, , MVM a Traveled Crashes/MVM a Persons Killed/100 a MVM Persons Injured/MVM a Source: 2012 PA Crash Facts a MVM = million vehicle-miles Note: State Highway (Other) includes state-maintained roads that are not designated as interstates. The road mileage and MVM data are from the 2011 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) package and reflects 2011 length and travel activity data. Ramps are included as part of the roadway to which it is connected. Table 2 shows that rates of crashes and persons injured on local roads are higher than on state roads on a per million vehicle-miles standard measurement. The response to an incident on a local roadway is undertaken by a combination of municipal, county, and volunteer agencies and organizations, and is normally a local responsibility. In most cases, there is very little organizational structure to the response. The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) is the only state agency with any direct incident management responsibility on local roadways, and PSP does not normally patrol those roadways. PSP responds for traffic accident and criminal investigation only, and only when there is no local police force. Other state-level entities may become involved if the issue escalates. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), by statute, may use its resources to respond to incidents on local roadways only after a declaration of emergency by the Governor. This study s recommendations focus on issues that are relevant to all responding agencies, within Pennsylvania s current statutory, regulatory, and policy rules. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) supports the county EMA if it is handling issues associated with the local response; again, by its enabling legislation and consistent with the National Response Framework, PEMA is only involved if issues escalate. Other state agencies such as the Department of Health, Department of FINAL REPORT 11

20 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee Agriculture, and Department of Environmental Protection could possibly have a role in support of response activities. One current unifying concept is the national and Commonwealth focus on the use of the ICS as the command and control structure for all responses to all emergencies. However, training in and application of ICS principles are not monitored. Further, although emergency responders and public works personnel have completed ICS course work, there is no measured system to gauge the effectiveness of that training. There is no clear way to judge improvements in operational capacity due to ICS. The ownership and responsibility for operation of a roadway is not clearly defined. There are no statutory or regulatory requirements that govern closures for planned events (construction or scheduled maintenance work, parades, etc.), or for unforeseen incidents such as flooding or other weather-related closures, traffic crashes, or security issues. PennDOT has control of special event closures with a permitting process in place, and the Secretary has authority to close roads for safety concerns, but that is only for state roadways, except in the case of a Governor s Declaration of Emergency. In both rural and urbanized areas, traffic incident and event management success is largely the result of a serendipitous environment where strangers congregate at a scene and make the necessary decisions to conduct safe operations and restore traffic capacity. It usually happens in just that order safety first, mobility second. Figure 3: TIM Responsibilities Are Divided Across Many Entities and Levels of Government 12 FINAL REPORT

21 Traffic Incident Management 2.1 Municipal/County Approach State agencies and regulations may influence TIM on local roadways, but they do not govern specific activities except during declared emergencies. According to current law in Pennsylvania (PA Act 35), municipal elected officials and elected or appointed administrators are responsible for designating a municipal emergency management coordinator and overseeing activities that involve municipal police, fire/rescue, emergency medical, and public works personnel and resources. This is consistent with the National Response Framework published in 2009 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). There is no penalty for non-compliance, and no recourse to compel a municipality to follow state mandate. There is no guarantee, even within a municipality, that there will be agreement on the scene of an incident about the approach to resolve safety and traffic issues. It follows that the response in a township in Butler County is likely different from a city in Berks County, or a borough in Carbon County. Likewise, a county coroner procedure in one county is very different from another county, based on the local conditions and personnel availability. Each municipality or county may have its own standards, processes, procedures, and problems to deal with. Larger municipalities generally have more personnel, equipment, and experience dealing with traffic incidents and their effects. Coordination of multi-municipal approaches to serious traffic disruptions is generally left to the municipal emergency management coordinators, who reach out to the county emergency management agency. The county agencies are the conduit to PEMA, which is responsible for information and resource coordination for multiple-county issues or for coordinating a higher level of response when warranted. Municipalities with little or no resources available to handle traffic incidents rely on state police, regional municipal police, or county hazardous materials units to help handle incidents. FINAL REPORT 13

22 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee Figure 4: Municipality Handling Incident on Municipal Road 2.2 State Approach PennDOT and PTC own, maintain, and operate more than 42,000 miles of state roadway, representing nearly one-third of the Commonwealth s total road network. Most of that system is patrolled by the PSP. PEMA is responsible for communications and resource coordination for events and incidents on those roadways, or off the roadway, but utilizing the system for emergency traffic. PennDOT is working with the FHWA to develop a peer group to review clearance times for TIM in Pennsylvania. There has been some state-level inter-agency coordination, but it has not involved local partners. PennDOT does not normally respond with personnel or resources for incidents even on state roadways after normal working hours, unless there is a specific call for resources or the traffic disruption is expected to last more than two hours. 2 2 PennDOT Publication 23: Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9 14 FINAL REPORT

23 Traffic Incident Management Figure 5: Multiple Disciplines Handling Incident on State Road FINAL REPORT 15

24 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee 2.3 Common Approach There are certain activities common to all incident responses. In the U.S., the Traffic Incident Timeline (Figure 6) is generally used to describe the eight key events and actions, or time points, in an incident s life cycle. The FHWA uses two key indicators: the duration between time points T1 and T5, when roadway clearance is achieved for all lanes affected by a disruption, and the duration between T1 and T6, when incident clearance is reached and responders leave the roadside. Figure 6: Traffic Incident Timeline The NUG and Timeline can be considered as a whole when impacts of NUG strategies are compared to the points on the timeline, as in Figure 7 from the draft Incident Management Manual produced for PennDOT between 2009 and FINAL REPORT

25 Traffic Incident Management Figure 7: Relationship between the National Unified Goal and Traffic Incident Timeline NUG Strategy = Correlation 1 Partnerships and programs Occurrence (T0) Report (T1) Incident Timeline Milestone 2 Multidisciplinary NIMS, TIM training 3 Goals for performance and progress 4 Technology 5 Effective policies 6 Awareness and education 7 Recommended practices for responder safety 8 Move over/slow down laws 9 Driver training and awareness 10 Multidisciplinary procedures 11 Response/clearance time goals 12 24/7 availability 13 Multidisciplinary communications practices and procedures Verification T(2) Dispatch (T3) Scene Arrival (T4) Road Cleared (T5) 14 Prompt, reliable responder notification 15 Interoperable voice and data networks 16 Broadband emergency communications systems 17 Prompt, reliable traveler information systems 18 Partnerships with the news media and information providers Incident Cleared (T6) Traffic Normal (T7) FINAL REPORT 17

26 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee 2.4 Pennsylvania Statutes Pennsylvania has laws governing most aspects of TIM, in disparate places and codes as described on the following table. A brief analysis is included to suggest policy improvements. Table 3: Pennsylvania Laws Affecting Traffic Incident Management Subject PA Law Summary Emergency Management Stop Law Authority Removal Law Public Health and Safety Code: Title 35 Vehicle Code (Title 75), Chapter 37, Sections 3742 (injury crash) and 3743 (non-injury crash) Vehicle Code (Title 75), Chapter 37, Section (cargo), Section (wrecked vehicle) Emergency Management is the responsibility of municipalities, counties, and the State Emergency Management Agency. The act covers fire, emergency medical, and related services. Drivers shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident, or as close thereto as possible but shall forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident Every stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. (cargo) Immediately following an accident, a police officer may remove or direct removal of spilled cargo from any roadway to the nearest point off the roadway where the spilled cargo will not interfere with or obstruct traffic. (vehicle) A police officer may immediately remove or direct removal of a wrecked vehicle if the owner or operator cannot remove the wrecked vehicle or refuses or fails to have the vehicle removed as required under this section. Limited Liability for both sections: In carrying out the provisions of this subsection, no liability shall attach to the police officer or, absent a showing of gross negligence, to any person acting under the direction of the police officer, for damage to any vehicle or damage to or loss of any portion of the contents of the vehicle. Drivers who remove vehicles from the roadway do not admit fault by moving the vehicle. Analysis Green = Law is appropriate Yellow = Additional public education required Red = Action required Amending Title 35 to address traffic incident management separately as a collaborative effort of volunteer professional and paid professional responders would categorize TIM activities as an emergency management responsibility. Better public outreach and education would be of benefit to Pennsylvanians to promote safety and reduce traffic obstructions following a crash. Outreach to the general public and special instruction for new drivers would be appropriate. There is no limitation on liability of a fire company, municipality, or state agency, only of the individuals. Adoption of legislation that limits liability of those agencies and departments would be beneficial. Adding or incident commander to the police officer would be NIMScompliant. 18 FINAL REPORT

27 Traffic Incident Management Subject PA Law Summary Steer Clear Law (Move Over) Emergency Vehicle Equipment Coroners Title 75, Chapter 37, Section 3327 Title 75, Chapter 45, Subchapter D Pa Law 602, No. 152, Sec. 3, Section 1237(a)(3) and Section 1240 Drivers approaching an emergency response area must pass in a lane not adjacent to the emergency response area or pass at a careful and prudent reduced speed for safely passing the emergency response area. Flares, signs, or other traffic control devices, as well as visual signals on emergency vehicles, must be present to define the emergency response area. Designates that red lights, blue lights, and yellow lights are appropriate for emergency vehicles, including police, fire, emergency medical, towing, or DOT vehicles, ad those deemed by State Police or PennDOT as necessary to the preservation of life or property. In all cases where the coroner has jurisdiction to investigate the facts and circumstances of death, the body and its surroundings shall be left untouched until the coroner has had a view thereof or until he shall otherwise direct or authorize, except as may be otherwise provided by law, or as circumstances may require. Bodies upon a public thoroughfare or in other places may be removed so much as is necessary for precaution against traffic accidents or other serious consequences which might reasonably be anticipated if they were left intact. (As amended 1990, Nov. 29, P.L. 602, No. 152, Sec. 3) Analysis Green = Law is appropriate Yellow = Additional public education required Red = Action required Pennsylvania has a good law following national standards and no action is necessary beyond public education. Pennsylvania has no issues with warning light usage or yellow lights when used for emergency purposes. There is no identified statewide issue with delays in roadway clearance based on coroner activities, or delays in arrival. FINAL REPORT 19

28 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee 3. TIM Best Practices Overview 3.1 Policy and Legislation In compiling the information for this report, the study team conducted numerous interviews and reviewed considerable literature on TIM. This section documents those interviews and reports on the issues that were raised as part of this research Driver Removal The FHWA Office of Operations reports that more than half of all U.S. states have Driver Removal laws that require drivers involved in a crash to move their vehicle from the travel lanes, exchange information, and report crash information as required by law. State-to-state, laws consistently promote the minimal obstruction of traffic but vary significantly in the specific provisions defining where, when, and under what conditions these laws apply. Pennsylvania s Driver Removal law follows model language promoted by FHWA. In any incident involving death, injury, or property damage, drivers are required to stop as close as possible to the scene of the incident and to exchange information with law enforcement personnel or other motorists. The law states, Every stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. FHWA s studies suggest that a more comprehensive Pennsylvania removal law might also address specifics such as: applicable roadway facilities and affected features; applicable incident types; removal authority; appropriate removal locations; crash investigation; and hold harmless clauses. Although Driver Removal laws are widely enacted, they are not always actively publicized or enforced, which limits their effectiveness. FHWA projects significant benefits from active promotion of Driver Removal laws. Studies show proper driver removal of vehicles involved in a crash reduces incident-related delay by more than 10 percent. Delay cost savings are estimated at more than $1,600 per incident. Further reference material on Driver Removal laws is available at Authority Removal FHWA suggests that Authority Removal laws and associated Hold Harmless laws were originally envisioned to ensure adequate accessibility to the roadway infrastructure or appurtenances for transportation agencies when performing roadside construction and maintenance duties and for emergency response vehicles en-route to an emergency. Safety 20 FINAL REPORT

29 Traffic Incident Management implications of damaged or disabled vehicles and/or spilled cargo were considered only if travel lanes were sufficiently obstructed. As years passed, Authority Removal laws became strategies for reducing incidentrelated congestion and delay. Also, the scope of removal authority expanded to generally include not only obstructions in the travel lanes but also vehicles and/or cargo on the shoulder or in the roadway right-of-way, in recognition of the potential safety hazards. Model language includes providing responders with the authority to move or order the removal of a vehicle from the roadway, and authorizes a law enforcement officer or the Incident Commander (as defined in NIMS/ICS) to remove vehicles from the highway at the owner's expense if the driver is unwilling or unable to do so. When the decision is made in the absence of a law enforcement officer, the model language suggests that the vehicle's location be reported to the nearest law enforcement agency as soon as practicable. This language addresses the issues associated with delays in arrival or unavailability of law enforcement officers. Additional guidance related to Authority Removal laws is provided in the Incident Responders' Safety Model Law. One section of the model law (Section 5, in sidebar) provides liability protection to responding agencies and their personnel when incident clearance functions are exercised with reasonable care at the direction of the Incident Commander. Section 5. Liability Protection for Authorized Incident Clearance Functions a. Governmental agencies responding to incidents, including but not limited to law enforcement, firefighting, emergency medical services, hazardous materials, transportation agencies and other emergency governmental responders are authorized to exercise the incident clearance functions enumerated in this section. If such functions are exercised with reasonable care and at the direction of the incident commander, those governmental agencies and their personnel and other designated representatives are insulated from liability resulting from such actions taken pursuant to incident clearance, including: o Incident detection and verification; o Incident area security and protection; o Rescue of persons from vehicles and hazardous environments; o Emergency medical transportation and care; o Hazardous materials response and containment; o Fire suppression and elimination; o Transportation of vehicle occupants; o Traffic direction and management, and establishment and operation of alternate routes, including but not limited to traffic detours and/or diversion; o Crash investigation; o Dissemination of traveler information; o Incident clearance, including removal of debris, coordination of clearance and repair resources, and temporary roadway repair and facilities restoration; o Removal of vehicles and cargo; o Any other actions reasonably necessary. b. When directed by the incident commander, towing and recovery service providers are authorized to perform the following enumerated functions, and any other actions reasonably necessary to perform those enumerated functions; o Removal of vehicles from the incident area; o Protection of property and vehicles; o Removal of debris from the roadway; o Transportation of persons or cargo. FINAL REPORT 21

30 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee Another section (Section 6, in sidebar) assigns the costs associated with incident removal to the vehicle or cargo owner(s). Further reference material on Authority Removal laws is available at fhwahop09005/auth_removal.htm Other Examples Legislation activities are those associated either with enabling or permissive laws that allow practitioners to perform certain activities, or those that mandate or require that actions be taken. There is a place for both types of legislative action. Section 6. Compensation for Incident Removal Costs Notwithstanding any other law or regulation, any agency, person or organization incurring the cost of removing vehicles and/or cargo at an incident, if such removal is authorized by the traffic incident commander, shall have the unqualified right to compensation for the cost of such removal from the owner (or owners) of: o the vehicles removed; and/or o the vehicles whose cargo was removed in whole or in part. This summary highlights relevant U.S. laws beyond Move Over and Driver Removal laws, where Pennsylvania is already aligned with national best practices. Abandoned Vehicles Indiana Code and other states Defines an abandoned vehicle as remaining 24 hours, and allows for removal of the vehicle after that time. Pennsylvania is effectively using a seven-day approach unless the vehicle poses a clear safety hazard. Hold Harmless Rhode Island (b) There shall be no liability incurred by any state or local public safety department or agents directed by them whether those agents are public safety personnel or not for damages incurred to the immobilized vehicle(s), its contents or surrounding area caused by the emergency measures employed through the legitimate exercise of the police powers vested in that agency to move the vehicle(s) for the purpose of clearing the lane(s) to remove any threat to public safety. Texas (e) An authority or a law enforcement agency is not liable for: (2) any damage resulting from the failure to exercise the authority granted by this section. Virginia B. The Department of Transportation, Department of State Police, Department of Emergency Management, local law-enforcement agency and other local public safety agencies and their officers, employees and agents, shall not be held responsible for any damages or claims that may result from the failure to exercise any authority granted under this section provided they are acting in good faith. 22 FINAL REPORT

31 Traffic Incident Management Oklahoma B. 2. Absent a showing of gross negligence, the law enforcement officer, the employing agency, or any person acting under the direction of the law enforcement officer is not liable for damage to a vehicle or damage or loss to any portion of the contents or cargo of the vehicle when carrying out the provisions of this subsection. Towing and Recovery Washington RCW 46 and 47 Washington State s Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapters 46 and 47 reference permitting of towing companies, drivers, and cover inspection of facilities, among other requirements. Harford County, Maryland Police Initiated Towing Regulations Harford County divides its county into five areas of response, certifies vehicles and operators, and puts a premium on rapid response to clear roadways. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) PTC establishes Authorized Service Provider Agreements master agreements with service providers authorized to perform repairs and towing services. The agreements specify standards that apply to service calls on the Turnpike. Payment to authorized service providers is made per call, not based on time spent on scene. PTC is currently assessing practices, including a review of current practices in Pennsylvania and national best practices in as many as 15 states. The study will also consider service and incentive models. Towing & Recovery Incentive Programming (TRIP) Atlanta s TRIP program is recognized as a national best practice; variations of TRIP exist in Washington and in part of Ohio. When heavy wreckers and personnel are called by designated authorities to move large rigs from the interstates in and around Atlanta, those companies receive an incentive payment when clearance is completed within a specified timeframe 90 minutes to two hours for most TRIP programs. The programs work best in metropolitan areas where heavy wrecking is required more often. 3.2 Leadership, Institutional, and Sustainability Activities Leadership Leadership activities are those that establish program leadership specifically, and those that signify leadership commitment to TIM improvement from a high level. FINAL REPORT 23

32 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME program), Wisconsin Wisconsin s TIME program, with DOT leadership, established consistent, statewide scene management guidelines detailed enough to be used in after-action reviews. They were established collaboratively and are monitored collaboratively in DOT-sponsored regional TIME meetings held semi-annually or quarterly. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) New Jersey Southern Area First Responders Group (SAFR) Incident Management Task Force DVRPC is the metropolitan planning organization for the nine-county Philadelphia region that includes parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Its SAFR Incident Management Task Force assisted in developing scene management guidelines for all responders, signed by all parties, that are in use in one region of New Jersey. These guidelines have also been a template for other DVRPC incident management task forces in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey currently developing their own versions. The state of New Jersey used these guidelines as a model for a statewide version that has been signed off by the state attorney general. Figure 8: DVRPC TIM Task Force Corridors New York Emergency Traffic Control and Scene Management Guidelines New York modified and adapted the Wisconsin TIME model for its use and used a statewide coordinating committee structure to develop and promote standardized approaches to TIM. It includes information on response roles and responsibilities and is applicable to all responses, not only those where state agencies are involved. It includes guidance on collecting after-action information from all involved in response activities and uses DOT repositories of after-action review data to improve approaches and guidelines. 24 FINAL REPORT